It seems like Bangladesh is winning their 'minnow' battle against England

[tigerPassion]

Below is their record against the top teams.

Bangladesh

Played - 5 (Aus,NZL, Sri, Ind, SAF)
Won - 2 (Ind, SAF)
Lost - 3 (Aus, NZL, Sri)
Win % - 40

It's sad that their match against India doesn't count in the Super Eight.

England

Played - 3 (Aus,NZL, Sri,)
Won - 0
Lost - 3 (Aus, NZL, Sri)
Win % - 0


Even if England wins against Bangladesh, their overall performance in this WC would still be worse than Bangladesh.

Really shows that among the minnows Bangladesh is marginally better than England and Ireland.

A big achievment for a country where first class cricket started just 6 years ago compared to a country who has a two hundred year cricket history.

[Richard]

I really don't know what you intend to prove with this.

IF - and it is an if - England thrash Bangladesh when they get the chance all that will pale into insignificance.

Nor do I see any significance to cricket played by England in 1970 - never mind 1807.

[tigerPassion]

Originally Posted by Richard

I really don't know what you intend to prove with this.

Not trying to prove anything but stating the fact. Just happy to see Bangladesh outperforming big teams like England.

[tigerPassion]

Originally Posted by Richard

IF - and it is an if - England thrash Bangladesh when they get the chance all that will pale into insignificance.

It wont change a thing. I dont count victories against teams who are not the top teams. To equal Bangladesh's performance in thios World Cup, England needs to defeat South Africa and West Indies. If they dont then Bangladesh to me would be the better team as their performance against the top teams have been better than England.

Bangladesh defeated South Africa so that doesn't mean Bangladesh have outperformed them. If South Africa's wins against England, West Indies and New Zealand and goes through then they outperformed Bangladesh but the reverse is nor true though Bangladesh defeated them.

[LA ICE-E]

I don't see the need for a new thread though. you could have posted this in the super 8 thread or the bangladesh threads that's already here and in the wc forum. I would suggest a mod to merge this into one of them.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tigerPassion

It wont change a thing. I dont count victories against teams who are not the top teams. To equal Bangladesh's performance in thios World Cup, England needs to defeat South Africa and West Indies. If they dont then Bangladesh to me would be the better team as their performance against the top teams have been better than England.

In which case Bangladesh cannot possibly have done better - since all games involving them - most significantly, their 2 victories - will be discounted.

[tigerPassion]

Originally Posted by Richard

In which case Bangladesh cannot possibly have done better - since all games involving them - most significantly, their 2 victories - will be discounted.

Bangladesh didn't win against Bangladesh....they won against India and South Africa......got that?

[Richard]

Err, those games involved Bangladesh - if you wish to exclude games against substandard teams, you have to exclude those - so Bangladesh's record would read P 0 W 0 L 0.

See?

[LA ICE-E]

no he isn't talking about games with substandard teams, he's talking about how a team's performing against the top 8 and you know that's what he's talking about but just want to make it complicated.

[tigerPassion]

Originally Posted by Richard

Err, those games involved Bangladesh - if you wish to exclude games against substandard teams, you have to exclude those - so Bangladesh's record would read P 0 W 0 L 0.

See?

Wins against susbstandard teams like England,Bangladesh and the associates shouldn't count. Like Bangladesh's victory over Bermuda or England's win over ireland shouldn't count.

But If teams like Bangladesh and England beats any of the top teams then that should count. England didn't beat any of the top sides but Bangladesh beat two of them. So you decide who did better in this world cup.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

no he isn't talking about games with substandard teams, he's talking about how a team's performing against the top 8 and you know that's what he's talking about but just want to make it complicated.

I'm making no such effort - I'm pointing-out the flaws in what he's said.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tigerPassion

Wins against susbstandard teams like England,Bangladesh and the associates shouldn't count. Like Bangladesh's victory over Bermuda or England's win over ireland shouldn't count.

But If teams like Bangladesh and England beats any of the top teams then that should count.

Nope, doesn't work like that, you can't have it both ways.

Either a team is up-to-standard or it isn't.

Bangladesh aren't - so nothing involving them counts. Therefore they have won no games and no-one has won against them, in this analysis which counts for oh so much...

[tigerPassion]

Originally Posted by Richard

Nope, doesn't work like that, you can't have it both ways.

Either a team is up-to-standard or it isn't.

Bangladesh aren't - so nothing involving them counts. Therefore they have won no games and no-one has won against them, in this analysis which counts for oh so much...

lolzzzzz

1. Bangladesh and England are both substandard ODI teams.

2. Bangladesh beat two standard teams in this World Cup and England none.

3. Who has performed better?

Hope you get it this time!!!

[LA ICE-E]

No the analysis is how many games have England and Bangladesh won against the top 8 in this world cup. So far Bangladesh = 2 England = 0.

[tigerPassion]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

No the analysis is how many games have England and Bangladesh won against the top 8 in this world cup. So far Bangladesh = 2 England = 0.

Exactly!!!

But you know he cannot accept the fact that Bangladesh outperformed England, really hard for him to digest that.